Steinway M

[Farrell]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Comments below:

Terry Farrell
 =20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Cy Shuster" <charter1400@charter.net>

> I'm trying to understand this discussion, and it sounds like there's =
simply
> honest disagreement over the merits of this one design -- is that a =
fair
> statement? =20

I'm not even sure there is any disagreement over a design - just some =
differences of opinion. The only difference seems to be in the =
interpretation of what some folks read.

> There are many designs which have broad agreement as having
> lesser merit: drop actions vs. direct blow, etc.  In this case, some
> comments seem to say that some M's are fine pianos, in spite of =
acknowledged
> design deficiencies, so that it would be an error to generalize.  Are =
there
> subvariations of the M's design, perhaps from different years of =
production?
> --Cy Shuster--
> Rochester, MN

I don't know Ms that well, so I don't know if there might be a few =
design changes among them. However, even if there are, I don't think =
that is the issue here.

IMHO, ditto what David Love posted:

David Love wrote:
I think those who argue for improved designs are probably making those
arguments based (at least in significant part) on empiricism, not with =
disregard to it.  Implied in these
and other comments is that an attempt to produce a better design somehow
means that the desire is to remove the variable of the art or craft of
getting the most out of that design.  I haven't read that in any of the
designers' comments.  Rather, I see the ideas as attempts to remove some =
of
the obstacles to achieving artistic goals on a more consistent basis. =20

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/e9/31/d6/c7/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--